Latest Jurisprudence 2022

People vs Efren Agao Anonuevo

Facts:

 Efren Agao is a step-father of AAA who was charged of two counts of statutory rape, under
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
 AAA stated that sometime in 2009, when she was 10 years old, the accused first molested her by
touching her private parts.
 On 2010, AAA was raped by the accused by trying to insert his organ into her vagina managing to
reach to her labia majora but was unable to fully penetrate because AAA was fighting.
 She testified that the accused continued to molest her 3 times a week and on 2012, the accused
also tried to penetrate her vagina but was unable to do so because she was fighting back.
 AAA kept these incidents from her mother because she was afraid that they might harm her and
her mother and she was also afraid that her mother might not believer her.
 On 2014, when her mother left the accused and over two years since the last assault, AAA muster
the courage to tell her aunt about the sexual assault of the accused and able to file a complaint
against him.
 In her genital examination by Police Chief Inspector Jocelyn P. Cruz, it was found that there is no
injury nor hymenal laceration but according to her it is possible that the injury has healed as two
years has passed.
 However, the accused denied all the allegations and stated that he treated AAA as his own
daughter and AAA allegations was coached by CCC, her father.
RTC Ruling:
RTC found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Statutory Rape.

 RTC gave credence to AAA's testimony, and appreciated it as categorical, consistent, and
straightforward.
 They held that although there was no laceration in AAA's hymen, but with accused penis only
merely touching the labia, the crime of rape was consummated.
 The RTC, however, did not appreciate the qualifying circumstance of the stepdaughter-stepfather
relationship between AAA and Efren because the prosecution failed to show proof that he was
legally married to BBB.
CA Ruling:
CA affirmed the RTC's conviction.

 CA found that the RTC correctly gave weight to AAA's testimony and her positive identification
of appellant as the one who raped her.
 They also held that on the matter of ascribing credibility to the testimony of a witness, the
valuations of the RTC are given utmost respect because it had the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses.
 They stated that absence of vaginal laceration was immaterial, for neither full penetration of the
vaginal orifice nor the rupture of the hymen was necessary, given that mere introduction of the
male organ to the labia of the victim's genitalia.
  CA also dismissed the argument that AAA's delay in reporting the incidents of rape cast doubt
because such delay may not be taken against the victim unless it was shown to have been
unreasonable and unexplained. In this case, AAA sufficiently was able to report the assaults after
she and her mother left the custody of appellant, the same delay is reasonable.

Issue:
whether the CA correctly affirmed the RTC decision which found appellant guilty of two counts of rape
through sexual intercourse as defined under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 and Article 266-B of the RPC as
amended by R.A. 8353 in conjunction with R.A. 7610

Court’s Ruling:
The appeal is without merit.

 The Court has reviewed the records of this case and finds no reason to overturn the verdict of
guilt handed down by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, but finds it proper to modify the finding
of two counts of Statutory Rape, the second one being only Simple Rape.
 The Court further finds that the CA erred in appreciating both incidents of rape as statutory. On
the contrary, only the rape as charged under Criminal Case No. 1453-V-14 is statutory in nature,
with AAA aged 10 years old at the time of the rape. On the other hand, the rape as charged under
Criminal Case No. 1454-V-14 is simple rape, with AAA at age 13 at the time of said incident.
 The Court also holds that the straightforward, candid and consistent testimony of AAA of the rape
sufficiently established that appellant's erect penis did touch the labia of her vagina which, under
prevailing jurisprudence, is a consummated rape.

This is:

 To clarify the parameters that must attend the courts' appreciation of the stages of commission of
rape in light of prevailing jurisprudence that has evolved in its definition of what constitutes "the
slightest touch" that consummates the same.
 To distinguish between attempted and consummated rape.
 Diverging cases show that, despite clear testimony of child victims of repeated attempts and
degrees of penetration of an erect penis, the accused were convicted merely of attempted rape
because of the absence of the clear definition of penile penetration that qualifies as consummated
rape, especially in cases of younger victims, in view of the physical natural resistance of their
underdeveloped anatomy.

I. Evolution of the wrong of rape

 The origin of the crime of rape as it is now defined traces its source to the Codigo Penal of
1870.
 Meaning of "carnal knowledge” defined as the act of a man having sexual intercourse or
sexual bodily connections with a woman and redefined and broadened as an act which may
be committed by a person who shall have carnal knowledge of another person.
 People v. Quinanola, Court held that until Congress sees it fit to define the term frustrated
rape and penalize it, its continued usage in the statute book should be considered a persistent
lapse in language.

Recalibration of Stages of Commission: Attempted vs Consummated

 Orita, any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, is sufficient
to warrant conviction.
 Dela Pena, ruled that mere touching of a vagina by a penis capable of penetration is
considered consummated rape.
 Escober, Court held that what is fundamental is that the entrance, or at least the
introduction, of the male organ to the labia of the pudendum, is proved.
 Castromero, accused's penis merely touched the minor victim's private parts and did not
penetrate – :ang kanyang pagaari ay lumapat sa aking pag-aari." The Court here
nevertheless found that the rape already reached its consummated stage.
 Quinanola, the Court further refined the operative definition of the required genital
contact for purposes of finding consummated rape, by outlining that the genital contact
has to be either of the two alternative scenarios: (1) the penis which merely enters the
labia or the lips of the vagina, or (2) the penis capable of consummation merely touches
the external genitalia.
 Oliver, Court reiterated that rape is consummated "when the penis touches the pudendum,
however slightly.
 Campuhan, Court clarified the standing definition of "touch" in reference to its ruling in
Orita, and elucidated that the minimum genital contact that is required for a finding of
consummated rape must be either ( 1) the penis touching the labia majora, or (2) the penis
sliding into the female organ.
 Ombreso, the allegation that the accused's erect penis "touched the upper part of
complainant's vaginal opening" was deemed sufficient for a finding of consummated
rape.
 Comanda. Court held that the "briefest of contacts" or the "mere introduction" of the
penis to the vagina consummates the rape, particularly that the penis reaches the
pudendum or, at the very least, the labia.
 Francisco, attempted to reconcile the two alternative minimum genital contacts by
clarifying that they are one and the same, in that for the penis even to merely touch the
labia majora or the labia minora of the vagina, the penis would have already attained
some level of penetration of the female organ.
 Mariano, held that the ascertainment of whether the penis of the accused did enter the
labial threshold of the female organ was necessary in order to find consummation, and
failure of the medico-legal report to support the allegation of completed rape results in
reasonable doubt in favor of the accused.
Diverging cases

 Orita, Dela Pena, Escober, Quinanola, Oliver, Campuhan and Castromero. In the said cases, the
Court already found as consummated rape that level of genital contact which was described as
"[pag]lapat" or the nudging or pressing upon the vagina by the penis.
 Tolentino, despite a clear testimony on the part of the victim that the accused therein kept "trying
to force his sex organ into" her vagina, the Court there held that there was no sufficient proof
offered to show that the penis touched the labia of the victim's vagina.
 Arce, the minor victim repeatedly used the word "idinikif' to describe the position of the erect
penis vis-a-vis her genitalia. The Court in Arce was unconvinced that the rape was consummated
because the victim's testimony indicated that appellant therein was not able to insert his penis into
her vagina nor did she declare that there was the slightest penetration.
 Dimapilis, the minor victim narrated that the accused "forced his organ into hers, " "tried to insert
his organ into hers and she felt it when he pressed it against her private part," and "tried to
penetrate her, but the Court held that the accused only guilty of attempted rape.
 Quarre, in said case, despite the repeated narration of one of the minor victims that the accused
therein kept trying to insert his penis into her vagina, and despite said minor victim's particular
notation of the fact that in the accused's attempts at penile penetration she felt persistent pain, the
Court there held that the rape was only in the attempted stage.
 Brioso, the Court held that since there was no other evidence, apart from the victim's testimony,
that could confirm whether there was penetration of the labia, the accused therein could only be
convicted of attempted rape. This, despite the consistent testimony of the minor victim therein
that the accused kept trying to insert his erect penis into her vagina

II. Clarifying the parameters for appreciation of "slightest penetration" in cases of rape by
sexual intercourse through penile penetration
 Began in Orita all the way to Mariano is when the prosecution established that the erect penis of
the accused touched the labia of the pudendum of the victim's vagina as a precursor for penile
penetration, regardless of whether the penetration, full or partial, was actually obtained.
 The court clarifies that rape of a female victim by a male person through penile penetration
reaches the consummated stage as soon as the penis penetrates the cleft of the labia majora, also
known as the vulval or pudendal cleft, or the fleshy outer lip of the vulva, in even the slightest
degree.
 To be sure, the Court's clarification herein remains faithful to the original definition as laid down
in the earliest recalibration in Orita,
 In other words, if any nature and degree of touch of a penis of the female genitalia can be
considered consummated rape, then effectively, all sexual assaults involving a penis and the vulva
would only either be acts of lasciviousness or consummated rape, with no gradation of the
attempted stage in between.
 in order to consummate the crime of rape: 1. There must be the SLIGHTEST PENETRATION of
the VULVAL CLEFT ("hiwa" in Pilipino); 2. Slightest penetration, not TOUCHING of the labia
majora, is the operative act that consummates the rape; and 3) It is no longer the labia majora that
is required to be penetrated but the PUDENDAL or VULVAL CLEFT of the female genitalia.
Application of Stages of Commission of rape for pre-puberty victims
  Ages of nine years old and below, the "repeated touching" test is to applied where repeated
touching of erect penis to the vagina constitutes rape. Because the genitalia is underdeveloped
incapable of penetration and the first sign of puberty in girls occurs between 10 to 11 years old.
Circumspection required in appreciating testimonies of child victims in rape cases

 There should be guidepost, aid the courts in their appreciation of penile penetration: (i) when the
victim testifies that she felt pain in her genitals;(ii) when there is bleeding in the same (iii) when
the labia minora was observed to be gaping or has redness or otherwise discolored; (iv) when the
hymenal tags are no longer visible; or (v) when the sex organ of the victim has sustained any
other type of injury.
Nature of child testimonies in adversarial trials must be taken into account in the context of rape

 Child witnesses are also exposed to a hostile and unfamiliar environment in the form of a
courtroom during an adversarial proceeding, so that the evidence in these types of trials are often
"derived not out of truth but as a result of bullying or coercion.
 Intimidating atmosphere of a courtroom causes anxiety in children, and undermines their capacity
to offer accurate testimonial evidence.
 Rule on Examination of Child Witness (Rule), This Rule mainly covers the facilitation of the
testifying of minor witnesses, with the goal of creating a court environment that minimizes the
possible trauma on the child witnesses, and assists in enabling them to deliver the most credible
testimonies possible.
 In the specific context of trying cases of rape, the Court enjoins the courts: (i) to be circumspect
in their appreciation of the entire body of evidence submitted before them, including the
testimonial evidence offered by the minor victims in cases involving them; (ii) take into full
account the jurisprudential guideposts which depict the nature and degree of genital contact when
not explicitly described through the testimony of the victim, minor or otherwise; and (iii)
particularly with respect to minor victims, give due regard to their inherent linguistic limitations
as witnesses, in order to avoid demanding the highest exacting level of linguistic accuracy as they
have been jurisprudentially demonstrated to have required in the past.
Instant threshold of genital contact may be applied by analogy to acts of rape by sexual assault

 Article 266-A Par. 2 RPC- By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in
paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another
person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person.
 Penalty for attempted rape is two (2) degrees lower than the prescribed penalty of reclusion
perpetua for consummated rape of a minor under 12 but not below seven years of age. Prision
mayor, the range of which is six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.
 Penalty for acts of lasciviousness reclusion temporal in its medium period and reclusion
temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.

III. Application of the foregoing parameters in the present case

 Court find the accused guilty of consummated rape for both accounts
 He kept trying to penetrate her vagina as antecedent for full penetration, eventually
succeeding to introduce his erect penis on the vulva cleft of her vagina.
 appellant's erect penis and its touching of her vulval cleft (i.e., "sa may gitna," "sa may hiwa
") were established categorically and beyond doubt.
 Rape under Criminal Case No. 1453-V-14 is statutory in nature because AAA is 10 years old.
Under Criminal Case No. 1454-V-14, it is simple rape because AAA is 13 years old.